IPFS, Freenet, and experiments like that mainly serve as a place for people to store and distribute pirated copyrighted material, child porn, hit lists, terrorism manifestos and plans, and the like.
Scratch a libertarian and, nine times out of ten, you'll find someone who advocates for no or minimal government because they want to do something the government legitimately bars them from doing. Scratch a libertarian decentralized P2P E2EE communication project and you'll find... well, this kind of material nearly every time.
Your local computer hard drive can also be used to store all of the above. Are you also okay to make it scannable by anyone?
Worse you can store child porn as paper pictures in your house and can privately communicate in there with other unknown people and mignt even be do something illegal there. Do you want to install some police security camera in your toilet?
Oh, and in some countries being LGBTQ+ person or political activist or women right activist is illegal and will land you to execution on chop chop square. Should we also let all the governments find these people too?
> a libertarian decentralized P2P E2EE communication project
Your argument makes sense for Freenet (though I'd personally defend that project too); but not so much for IPFS.
Firstly, IPFS doesn't have any encryption (E2E or otherwise).
Also, Freenet spreads data around the network (for robustness and plausible-deniability), so the peers providing a file are not the peers which inserted it. IPFS does no such thing: if you want your content to remain available, you'd better be running an IPFS node that provides it.
Either way, it feels like a pretty bad idea to host dodgy stuff on IPFS.
IPFS is much closer to HTTP. The difference is that content is immutable, and can be re-hosted by anyone that happens to have a copy (e.g. no need for mirrors, etc.).
(Note that HTTP was invented to disseminate physics research; not CSAM)
Legitimate. Legal.
IPFS, Freenet, and experiments like that mainly serve as a place for people to store and distribute pirated copyrighted material, child porn, hit lists, terrorism manifestos and plans, and the like.
Scratch a libertarian and, nine times out of ten, you'll find someone who advocates for no or minimal government because they want to do something the government legitimately bars them from doing. Scratch a libertarian decentralized P2P E2EE communication project and you'll find... well, this kind of material nearly every time.
Your local computer hard drive can also be used to store all of the above. Are you also okay to make it scannable by anyone?
Worse you can store child porn as paper pictures in your house and can privately communicate in there with other unknown people and mignt even be do something illegal there. Do you want to install some police security camera in your toilet?
Oh, and in some countries being LGBTQ+ person or political activist or women right activist is illegal and will land you to execution on chop chop square. Should we also let all the governments find these people too?
> IPFS, Freenet, and experiments like that
> a libertarian decentralized P2P E2EE communication project
Your argument makes sense for Freenet (though I'd personally defend that project too); but not so much for IPFS.
Firstly, IPFS doesn't have any encryption (E2E or otherwise).
Also, Freenet spreads data around the network (for robustness and plausible-deniability), so the peers providing a file are not the peers which inserted it. IPFS does no such thing: if you want your content to remain available, you'd better be running an IPFS node that provides it.
Either way, it feels like a pretty bad idea to host dodgy stuff on IPFS.
IPFS is much closer to HTTP. The difference is that content is immutable, and can be re-hosted by anyone that happens to have a copy (e.g. no need for mirrors, etc.).
(Note that HTTP was invented to disseminate physics research; not CSAM)